A Sept 11th experiment "Trough & Beam"

Exchange camp ideas, find places to perform, announce your events, etc.

A Sept 11th experiment "Trough & Beam"

Postby Fredetroit » Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:15 am

After corresponding by e-mail with a nice person named Will he steered me to this forum so I am going to paste the contents of my
letters to him on the forum. If anyone is interested please contact me.

This is what I had thought of, it is an experiment that refutes the official explanation of how the twin towers failed on Sept 11th.
I am 51 years old and have a BS in Mechanical Engineering. I am not only alarmed but sickened and basically quite 
pissed off at the current political state of the country I was born in. Five years after the "the event that changed everything" I have had
ample time to not only read volumes on the subject but also to do my own somewhat limited calculations and such to see if the official story 
could even be remotely plausible. Focusing on that one event it has propelled the nation onto a course of assured destruction for not only 
Americans but innocent citizens of the world at large. I can list off a plethora of events and changes that have affected our country not for the good but rather to serve a select elite within our country. I am reasonably sure that anyone reading this are well aware of what I am referring to. OK on to my 
experiment and the refutation of the official explanation.

The government has  alleged that jet fuel (kerosene) contained in the airplanes burned at such a high temperature as to cause the 
structural steel frame work of the towers to soften and eventually fail utilizing the new "pancake effect" failure mode.

My initial reaction when I first viewed the failure of the towers that morning was of course shock but immediately I knew the failure 
mode could not possibly be what I had seen being broadcast. I knew from a "gut instinct" that the only possible logical failure mode 
would be a sideways failure stemming from the point of impact or how a tree would fall if you cut into the side of it. Failing in a straight 
down collapse of the entire building(s) at free fall speed is just plain physically impossible given the limited amount of heat energy 
that was introduced into the buildings steel framework.

I took it upon myself to do a rather simple calculation to see if in fact the failure mode described was even remotely possible.
I searched the web for the towers physical descriptions IE amount of steel concrete etc etc. I could not really find adequate descriptions so I made some gross assumptions and ran the numbers. I took the heat energy contained in 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and estimated what I felt one floor of the towers mass of steel and concrete might be. I turned all the fuel into pure heat and calculated the temperature rise of the building materials on one floor if that amount of heat was totally absorbed. It was a worst case non real world scenario and even then it failed to approach temperatures that would precipitate the failure of the building's steel. I totally neglected any heat transfer to the atmosphere, along the steel framework, I assumed 100% stoichiometric combustion (perfect air fuel mixture) once again non real world most extreme case.

Now my simple experiment I have termed the "trough and beam". It basically would comprise the following. A "trough" made from 1 - 4' X 8' sheet of 1/2" OSB plywood (or anything handy) use the waterproof side to the inside of the trough. Use 2X6X8' for the sides to contain our flammable liquid. Seal the joints with any handy caulk or silicone. Once again it doesn't matter that much because this is a one time destructive test. Place a simply supported beam over top of the trough a 6" wide flange beam would be ideal the type that is typically found as the center supporting beam in a home that has a basement. But once again the type of structural steel does not really matter as long as it is some type of recognized fabrication steel. Load the middle of the beam with 12" concrete blocks or depending on the size/shape of the beam some type of loading that will give an apparent deflection to the beam. Fill the trough with 10-20 gallons of kerosene or better yet JET A1 (real jet fuel) and touch it off. Now if real science has changed since I learned it to what our government would have us believe the beam should have a catastrophic failure within a short time frame.
I however believe you can keep adding fuel and throw in old office furniture, phone books, carpeting, wooden picture frames, anything that might  
be found in a modern office for as long as you care and the beam will just sit there until the fire dies out and some one moves it. You can also do such things as suspend various substances from the beam and see at what point they might melt, such as Copper, Aluminum, Tin, or Glass. The inclusion of one Iron-Constantan thermocouple and display in the middle of the beam would be desirable it should have a upper limit of some where around 1800 deg F.  

The experiment should be accompanied by some sort of documentary style video to record the event and to be able to show the world that real science and physics still applies even after "the day that changed everything" .

I have no idea how to proceed with the experiment as I basically lack the funds at the moment to attend the event, and am putting this idea out for anyone to persue.
I did a quick off the top of my head cost analysis and am quite confident that everything can be procured for under $500.

1 sheet 1/2" OSB $20
10- 2X6X8' studs @ $6 ea $60
1 tube caulk $4
1 I  beam 14'  $200?  (steel is priced on the weight as determined by the spot commodities steel quotes a "used" beam falls under scrap and is priced accordingly)
2 #'s 16 penny nails $2
1# 8 penny nails $1
50 gal. kerosene @ $3/gal?  $150
10- 5 gallon "blue approved kerosene plastic containers" @$8/ea  $80
A method to add kerosene without some one standing next to the trough and dumping it in during the experiment.
15' 1/4" copper tube $15
1 5 gal plastic bucket $4 at the depot (or free everywhere else)
assorted fittings to affix the copper tube to the bucket $1
weight to load the beam "heavy stuff" free or 12" cinder blocks 10 @ $2 ea? $20
2 ABC small fire extinguishers 1 on each end of the experiment $20 (better to have and not need....)

This would be the bare essentials to enact the experiment as I can envision it. The studs would be utilized to construct simple supports at each end of the beam and also for the walls of the trough . I am not sure as to the pricing on a thermocouple display I would assume it is well under a $100 now, the actual wire is about $5 for 30' this is just extras but i feel would enhance the experiment so everyone can see actual temperature.

Now once again I really cant afford to carry out on my own such a simple little task unless something changes economically for me between now and the celebration.
I would however have no qualms what so ever of any person, group of people taking this basic idea and running with it. I don't need any sort of recognition, accolades etc. etc. My sole reward would in fact be seeing such an experiment actually carried out by "we the people" and by what ever means available to us distributing the information to everyone possible. I could and will if asked serve as a basic consultant for the project and advise accordingly as to a myriad of questions that I feel I could adequately address.

a picture to look at

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/ene ... cture6.jpg

The picture is contained in Prof. Stephen Jones paper on the collapses.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html 

One other thing ....... this basic 8th grade level math problem should give you a little insight. Take 10,000 gallons (volume) and spread it uniformly over one acre (area) and calculate what the resultant height (distance) would be.  =] 
Fredetroit
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Bob » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:49 am

Dude... ever considered that maybe the attackers were simply smart enough to analyze the airplane-versus-WTC scenario themselves and pull it off? Osama's a civil engineer, you know.

As for your model test, I totally approve if you have a bus full of ravers huffing kerosene run into the building mockup at full speed to simulate a Boeing 767.
Amazing desert structures & stuff: http://sites.google.com/site/potatotrap/

"Let us say I suggest you may be human." -- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 6762
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 10:00 am
Location: San Francisco
Burning Since: 1986
Camp Name: Royaneh

Postby sputnik » Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:42 am

eta: I'm not going to bother.
It's going to be alright.
User avatar
sputnik
 
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:17 am
Location: Detroit
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: Ubercarney

Postby bringer » Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:20 am

So you say you have a undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering.
First of all, good for you. Its a tough degree.
Second of all, which of your professors told you to make "gross assumptions" about cases of structural failure? Does that really seem wise?

I don't know what the support structure of the towers was, so I'm not saying your gross assumption was wrong, but sisnce you admitedly state that _you_ don't know either, maybe you should allow that your gross assumption might be wrong.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
User avatar
bringer
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: kansas city

Postby joel the ornery » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:05 am

sputnik wrote:eta: I'm not going to bother.


ditto, sput... seems so troll-like to me.

and of course, i concur with Bob's comments on the mock-up test.
User avatar
joel the ornery
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
Burning Since: 1998

Postby MoisturePup » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:07 am

Fredetroit,

Most of us here would probably agree with you that the Bush administration sucks. That said, I think you're making some baseless accusations. I didn't hear anything from you that seemed to take into account the fact that the buildings outter girdle of support beams (a unique design feature to the WTC) may have caused a controlled colapse straight down into itself. Don't forget that even after the colapse several multi-story tall outter wall remnants remained in tact on the base floors, indicating just how strong that girdle was.

Please account for that before continuing with your accusations.

Moist!
P.S. I think we all know that the BMorg is conspiring with Bush to hide the secrets of 9/11.
MoisturePup
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:32 pm

Postby theCryptofishist » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:17 am

MoisturePup wrote:P.S. I think we all know that the BMorg is conspiring with Bush to hide the secrets of 9/11.
The ground zero organs were harvested while the towers were collapsing and the airplanes were a cover story. Now we know how Cheney's heart keeps beating--it's not his heart! And well, we just won't go into Larry's legenadary attitributes...
Simon's real sig line?

Embrace the Sock

Winners never quilt, quilters never win...
User avatar
theCryptofishist
 
Posts: 37405
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:28 am
Location: In Exile
Burning Since: 2017

WTC7

Postby robbidobbs » Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:05 pm

There were a lot of skeletons buried in those three buildings too.
Here's something that you may not have seen before, as there was a media blackout about it:

http://www.wtc7.net/
User avatar
robbidobbs
 
Posts: 2111
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:07 pm
Location: Pottie Central
Burning Since: 1999
Camp Name: Dept of Over-Engineering

Postby dragonfly Jafe » Fri Feb 10, 2006 1:36 pm

joel the ornery wrote:
sputnik wrote:eta: I'm not going to bother.


ditto, sput... seems so troll-like to me.

and of course, i concur with Bob's comments on the mock-up test.


Full Speed being in this case 5mph of course... :wink:

There are so many faults with this premise, not the least of which the building DID fall. What caused it if not the official mechanism? Bombs secretly planted at the towers base? Alien laser beams? Everyone running down the stairwell instead of walking? Contractors cutting corners and storing paint covered rags in an electrical closet?

And, if $500 is all it takes (plus the $250 ticket, plus $500 or so to get there and survive), $1250 over the next 200 days or so isn't hard to do, just need to work 1-2 hours a day (or collect 120 pop cans each day)...sounds like you have a perfect first art project. You may even be able to get it funded by Burningman if you apply real quick, although the deadline may already be passed, and your write-up would have to be phenominal. "Hope & Fear: the future" is the theme this year, however, so it is possible...
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
dragonfly Jafe
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:08 am
Location: the Oregon Trail

Postby sputnik » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:01 pm

dragonfly Jafe wrote:There are so many faults with this premise, not the least of which the building DID fall. What caused it if not the official mechanism? Bombs secretly planted at the towers base?


The premise is that "someone" place cutting charges all over all three buildings directly on the structural steel without anyone knowing about it and then detonated the charges after the planes hit. Farfetched to say the least.
It's going to be alright.
User avatar
sputnik
 
Posts: 7822
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:17 am
Location: Detroit
Burning Since: 2004
Camp Name: Ubercarney

Postby Kinetic IV » Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:05 pm

Fredetroit, don't let the spoonfed media skeptics and others get you down on this idea of yours. Without saying much more I'd be willing to shell out money to help fund this...I can't fund the whole thing but I'd like to help if anyone decides to take it on.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
Kinetic IV
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Postby dragonfly Jafe » Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:13 pm

...I'm not spoon fed by the media (just got TV again last month after 6 years without), but I am an engineer by training. While not a liscenced structural engineer, I am familiar with the concepts involved. I am also usually pretty well versed on the various conspiracy theories (Murrah Bldg Seismic stuff, Flight 800 missile stuff, etc), but I haven't heard of this.

There is a concept that any student should be familar with, that of Occam's Razor.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Which is easier to believe;

12 individuals, funded by unknown persons, managed to get enough flight training, sneak aboard 4 airlines, and crash 3 of them into their targets (steel reinforced buildings, 2 of which are destroyed).

-or-

The US government (the only entity that could pull this off) decides to destroy one of it's most important buildings (along with a few hundred of it's most important people), and managed to do so without anyone involved (surely way more than 12) coming forward (perhaps after suicide). They also either remote controlled the airlines (tricky, but possible) or convinced either the pilots or 12 suiciders to take over the planes and crash them (just to cover their tracks).

Note: the first scenario is contained in it's entirety in the last part of the last sentance of the conspiracy scenario (as a minor part).

Which is more believeable?

Now, I'm all for heating a beam in the desert over a big ass fire! I just don't think it would prove anything, other than we can heat a beam over a big ass fire in the desert. And as art goes, it is kind of passe, so I am not likely to financially back it. Spice it up a bit, maybe (design a structure that WILL fail in a fire, then stoke it up and stand back!) Maybe even crash some model airliners into it....
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
dragonfly Jafe
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:08 am
Location: the Oregon Trail

Re: A Sept 11th experiment "Trough & Beam"

Postby HughMungus » Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:13 pm

the event that changed everything


Didn't change anything for me.
It's what you make it.
User avatar
HughMungus
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Kinetic IV » Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:21 pm

I know about Occam's Razor. But I also think the proposed idea warrants a closer look and I figure I can make a better statement of support by putting my money where my mouth is.

I also tend to dismiss many of the conspiracy theories.
But when it comes to 9/11 I don't want to dismiss anything out of hand until it's been soundly flogged, dissected, went over, around and through. I have a good reason for that. A very good reason. Anyway I'll shut up now unless someone comes forward that wants to try and do this.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
Kinetic IV
 
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06

Trough & Beam

Postby Fredetroit » Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:41 pm

My post hasnt even been up 24 hours after the weekend i will post a summary reply. I can assure you it will be lengthy but as succint as possible. One thought has anyone so far even attempted to solve my 8th grade math problem including the "engineer by training" and posted the soloution? (very bottom of my initial post)
 "If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh or they will kill you." --Oscar Wilde
Fredetroit
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby dragonfly Jafe » Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:12 pm

So it's a little over 1cm deep, what does that prove?

As soon as the plane hit (and took out) the structural beams of the towers it essentially vaporized, along with it's fuel. Now you are dealing with a gas, mostly, not a liquid. Plus, it was 4 floors not 1, so we are talking 4 acres (roughly) not 1 (assuming each floor was 1 acre).

And what happens if you take all 10,000 gallons worth of heat and focus it on a few beams? After the ones next to it have been eliminated/weakened? There would have been hot spots and cool spots in that inferno, and not all the beams have to be weakened, just a few critical ones. Heat is not temperature. Exceed the yield temp in a few critical spots, gravity does the rest. Plus, who's to say the building didn't have some critical flaw (akin to not putting fire retardent/insulation on the steel beams)?

Even if you can "prove" the fire could not have caused the collapse, you still have a huge way to go to show this means anything. Engineering is an approximation (often poor) of reality. That is why there are safety factors. And Engineering failures.

The easiest answer is 12 radicals did it in the name of Islam. To admit less is to underestimate the enemy.

Now, if you have any proof that the government DID do it...
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
dragonfly Jafe
 
Posts: 1882
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:08 am
Location: the Oregon Trail

Postby diane o'thirst » Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:16 pm

The experiment, as I understand it (Jim, I'm a sculptor, dammit, not an engineer), leaves out one element:

The structure of the towers was compromised by the impact of the planes before the fire started (albeit only a minute before) and the support structure for the whole tower *was* the whole tower. Buildings are structurally integral: compromise the integrity of one component and the total structural failure follows.
You'd probably have to do something like drive over the trough with a big truck at full speed to get a better picture.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
diane o'thirst
 
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby axolotl » Fri Feb 10, 2006 6:44 pm

dragonfly Jafe wrote:"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

Quite true, but here is another one to keep in mind:

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

dragonfly Jafe wrote:Which is more believeable?

As told by you- the official story, of course. Since you described two very simplified versions, in such a way as to make the one you already believe sound more believable. Well, ok, that seems to be human nature.

The reality is much more complex. We will never know the whole story, but there are heaps of facts out there that don't support the official 9/11 Commission version. Each one 'increases the number of entities' a little bit until the seemingly simple explanation becomes anything but.

And people's almost reflexive attitude of ridicule toward conspiracy theoriesfnord seems poorly rooted in U.S. history- there have been all sorts of dirty dealings, ulterior motives, cover stories, manipulation and treachery going on behind the scenes at every point in time. (Except, we are supposed to believe, right now, when all is as it seems.) Decades later- when everyone involved is dead- the real story starts to filter out.
The truth is out there but you have to go look for it yourself.

Back on topic though- I don't think the test Freedetroit is proposing would be a conclusive proof of anything at all, nor would it even make for a very interesting piece of artwork.

And this thread is doomed to degrade into an endless, tedious flamewar; so I suggest it be moved to the political forum and then locked.

Image
User avatar
axolotl
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: McEmpireâ„¢

Postby MoisturePup » Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:00 pm

dragonfly Jafe wrote:So it's a little over 1cm deep, what does that prove?

As soon as the plane hit (and took out) the structural beams of the towers it essentially vaporized, along with it's fuel. Now you are dealing with a gas, mostly, not a liquid. Plus, it was 4 floors not 1, so we are talking 4 acres (roughly) not 1 (assuming each floor was 1 acre).



You are correct, each floor of the WTC was 1 acre in size.

One of the structural issues with what happened was that the buildings outter girdle (the stripes you see going up the outside of the WTC) was one of the main support structures of the building. When the plane hit it ripped a giant hole in that support structure and forced the weight that was supported by the outside beams to now go to the understroyed portions of the girdle. We're talking about 20 floors of building that are now supported by 2/3's of the support structure it once had. Each floor being an entire acre, with the additional load of a large heavy airplane now resting in the middle in the middle of it, on fire.

There are other factors BESIDES fire and heat that lead to the demise of the building. An assumption was made during the original design phase of the building that if a plane did hit the WTC that it wouldn't be going full throttle. That it would've been a plane lost in fog and therefore flying at about 1/2 the speed of the plane that hit the WTC.

As we all know a very tiny bullet traveling at enough speed can rip through an entire human body and kill somebody. If you throw a bullet at somebody it's not going to kill them. But if you put that same bullet in a gun and send it off at 600 miles an hour into somebodies chest, it will. In this case that airplane was traveling so fast that that it acted like a bullet against the skin and innards of the WTC. Now imagine if somebody were shot with an explosive tipped tank round. That's basically what happened to the WTC. It got shot by a very big bullet, which then exploded AFTER impact.
MoisturePup
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:32 pm

Postby Dustdevil » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:06 pm

Did your calculations take into account the wind speed that day? I run a large flame effects device on the Playa. The primary fuels are kerosene, JetA, gasoline and methanol. Most of the burner section is built from 304 Stainless. We found that the flame holder would melt when we ran the afterburner at full throttle for more than 15 seconds. The unit consumes up to 50 gallons per minute if all 7 AB units are on and the engine is running at max thrust. We had to build the flame holder from 321 SS to resist the heat. The force of the thrust increases the heat factor exponentially. Similar to a black smith using a bellows to super heat his fire. I feel you have ignored too many variables for your experiment to be accurate.
Those who think they can and those who think they can't are both right.
Dustdevil
 
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: West Oakland
Burning Since: 1996
Camp Name: Brain Freeze / Got Stickers Camp

Regarding Trough & Beam

Postby sun4all » Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:48 pm

Thanks for posting your thoughts on the WTC collapse. I read an interesting analysis of the collapse from a civil engineer. Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference so that I can provide a citation.

The essence of what this civil engineer said was this:

It was not the jet fuel that caused the WTC to collapse. These fires burned hot and VERY quickly died out when the fuel was exhausted. What weakened the WTC structure were the many smoldering fires on several floors. These fires lasted a LONG time as there was a lot to fuel them i.e., cubicles, insulation, ceiling tiles. The civil engineer pointed out that lax fire codes actually assisted these fires in burning. In its race to maximize space inside the WTC, the NY Port Authority allowed more space to be built without necessary fire partitions. Thus, when the floors caught fire, the fires consumed entire floors instead of just small parts of the floors. These long-term fires are what weakened the structure of the WTC. When one floor began to buckle and collapse, it pancaked and took the rest of the floors with it. The engineer also pointed out that if the elevator shafts had been constructed better, the shafts would not have buckeled in the heat and the elevators might still have been useable during the disaster (to a point).

For those who are wondering about the Pentagon and the airplane that hit that building consider that the only real mass on an aircraft are its engines. This is why there was very little of the aircraft left after the attack. The whole "where did the wings go" argument doesn't hold up. The entire aircraft disintegrated on impact. If you don't believe this, take an uncooked egg and throw it at a wall. There's you answer! :)

Good luck with the Playa experiment!
sun4all
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:43 pm

Postby BigCock » Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:44 pm

MoisturePup wrote:...That's basically what happened to the WTC. It got shot by a very big bullet, which then exploded AFTER impact.


Fredetroit - add the kinetic energy of the plane to the fuel energy you calculated and see what you get.
User avatar
BigCock
 
Posts: 2249
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: in yer pants

"The Trough and Beam"...A playa pub installation

Postby robotland » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:21 am

Such a good name for a pub...Constructed in emulation of WTC architectural techniques, it could serve as a place for further discussion as well as the enjoyment of a good pint...and be burned at week's end.
Howdy From Kalamazoo
robotland
 
Posts: 3793
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 8:29 am
Location: Kalamazoo

Test means nothing?

Postby Rockdad » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:34 am

No horizontal structural beams in the building = Test means nothing? The building was held up by outside skin and massive vertical steel columns in center core.

1.) I think he overlooks one fact the building was not designed like the Empire State building with Steel beam system. This was a Web Truss system comparatively thin and long web trusses holding up thin concrete/steel pan floors tied to the outside walls. Everything basically was held up by the outside skin and central core vertical columns.
So if he builds his model out of lets say a electrical conduit truss system with no fireproofing spanning a good distance over a hot fire and stands up on it I say he will experience his failure mode in action as a participant! Would love to watch!

2.) WTC-7 I was there saw it wonder to this day. It would of made sense to bring it down with explosives demolition because of damage incurred and fires that were unsafe to fight.
But why hid that fact? robbidobbs has a good point here and I concur with her that something was hidden about this collapse. As they said "Pull it!"
Lot of economical reasons to bring it down too.

3.)
HughMungus
the event that changed everything



Didn't change anything for me.


I will never understand open endedTroll statements such as this?


Image
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog
User avatar
Rockdad
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:43 pm

dragonfly Jafe wrote:There are so many faults with this premise, not the least of which the building DID fall. What caused it if not the official mechanism?


I did, on behalf of my employers - the Bavarian Illuminati. But perhaps I've already said too much. Image
User avatar
Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:50 pm

Re: A Sept 11th experiment "Trough & Beam"

Postby Curmudgeon » Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:53 pm

Fredetroit wrote:After corresponding by e-mail ...


Sigh. Conspiracy theories.

Here's one thing to factor into your calculations. The fuel from the impacting jet wouldn't have been simply poured across the floor to spread evenly, it would have come flying in at a few hundred miles per hour aboard the jet it was on, arriving onsite with a good, hefty amount of linear momentum carrying it forward, momentum which is not going to easily be shed given the relatively low viscosity of jet fuel. So you're not going to get a thin film of fuel igniting, you're going to get a small river of it doing so.

Moot point, though, because as we already know, I did it. I did it all on my own, with my own little swiss army knife and three M-80s, on behalf of the Illuminati. Ever wonder why it's always the Bavarian Illuminati and never the Austrian or the Bohemian Illuminati? Because we're just that good.
User avatar
Curmudgeon
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:50 pm

I truly believe the buildings were brought down with "h

Postby Rockdad » Sun Mar 12, 2006 11:53 pm

So many points to ponder but I truly believe the buildings were brought down with "help" The WTC 7 building was obviously controlled demolition and FDNY firefighters still are claiming it no one will listen!

Just the fact that Larry Silverstein bought the buildings just six week's earlier and everyone thought he was nut's they had a terrible office vacancy problem, asbestos issues, security problems and he ended up doubling his investments with the insurance payout.

Bush needed a New Pearl Harbor to get in to Iraq for pride, power and oil and it was delivered that day.

Inside job with Mossad help? a lot of evidence pointing that way now and google the "King David hotel" that was a Israeli Mossad false flag operation where the blew up a Jewish hotel killing many Jews and completely flatting the building which they blamed on Palestinians,to try to bring the British into war with the Palestinian people.
The U.S.S Liberty attacked and almost sunk by disguised Israeli boats and aircraft in a operation designed to force America into the Israeli-Egyptian war!
The case of Odigo, an Israeli company with offices located near the World Trade Towers, the existence of a warning message sent before the four aircraft had even left the ground is an established fact. That someone in Israel knew of the attacks ahead of time is beyond question.
In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.

Even Hitler started his campaign with the 1933 Reichstag fire which was blamed on Jews and then faked a attack by Poland to start WW2.
and how many false flag operations has America been involved in?
The Vietnam war was started with false/faked reports of our ship being attacked in the Tonkin Gulf.
Foreknowledge of Japan’s planned attack on Pearl Harbor by the US Administration was tantamount to complicity
All of the above false Flag operations are now known as fact not crazy conspiracies
I think our democracy is going to be tested to the breaking point by some very dark days ahead and before long.
I do expect there to be another major terrorist event before 2008 and I predict ole George will try to use it to try to suspend the constitution and stay in office..
God bless America now more than ever.

A video All Americans should watch

There is an old saying that goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME!"
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog
User avatar
Rockdad
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca

They counted on people falling for it!

Postby Rockdad » Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:17 am

MoisturePup wrote:
dragonfly Jafe wrote:So it's a little over 1cm deep, what does that prove?

As soon as the plane hit (and took out) the structural beams of the towers it essentially vaporized, along with it's fuel. Now you are dealing with a gas, mostly, not a liquid. Plus, it was 4 floors not 1, so we are talking 4 acres (roughly) not 1 (assuming each floor was 1 acre).



You are correct, each floor of the WTC was 1 acre in size.

One of the structural issues with what happened was that the buildings outter girdle (the stripes you see going up the outside of the WTC) was one of the main support structures of the building. When the plane hit it ripped a giant hole in that support structure and forced the weight that was supported by the outside beams to now go to the understroyed portions of the girdle. We're talking about 20 floors of building that are now supported by 2/3's of the support structure it once had. Each floor being an entire acre, with the additional load of a large heavy airplane now resting in the middle in the middle of it, on fire.


I disagree this sounds like the NIST/9-11 commision coverup reports which did not even mention the 48 huge massive interior vertical colums so large they had to be made in Japan 54" x 36" x 3"thick 100 feet long these were mostly found cut clean on the pile and quickly shipped out and FEMA was not even allowed to enter Ground Zero or look at them later! Why was all the evidence destroyed so fast? Have you ever heard of evidence being destroyed before a investigation? just like TWA 800 TSB was not allowed to investigate the wreckage FBI in fact arrested one of the TSB guy's for trying!
suppose you believe that kerosene can melt massive steel colums? did you know that the 9-11 commision does not even mention WTC-7!
Airplane resting in the middle? are you saying a Aircraft flying 600 mph came to rest in the middle? afraid not airplane was shredded and continued out building like confetti in fact there was a stewardess still in her seat two blocks away tangled up in a fire escape had to be there to know things they do not tell the public. In fact where are the black boxes? FBI says they were not found I know that at least three were!
Just food for thought..
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog
User avatar
Rockdad
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca

Postby Rockdad » Mon Mar 13, 2006 1:01 am

sputnik wrote:
dragonfly Jafe wrote:There are so many faults with this premise, not the least of which the building DID fall. What caused it if not the official mechanism? Bombs secretly planted at the towers base?

The premise is that "someone" place cutting charges all over all three buildings directly on the structural steel without anyone knowing about it and then detonated the charges after the planes hit. Farfetched to say the least.

Ok this part was easy the buildings had complete blackouts at night for two weeks just prior to the event, security which had been massive was reduced just prior to the event and the bomb dogs which had been there since 93 bombing were deemed unnecessary and pulled two weeks before. Both contractors involved in the clean-up testify to this day there was molten steel in the basement how did it get there....Thermite could do it and why was controlled demolition there on the first day? The president of controlled demo say's he was asked to assist there for consulation?

Some more kooks:
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse".

- Van Romero, Vice President For Research At New Mexico Institute Of Mining And Technology

"There were definitely bombs in those buildings ... many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they're afraid for their jobs to admit it because the 'higher-ups' forbid discussion of this fact"

- NYFD Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

- Teresa Veliz, WTC 1 Employee, 47th Floor

"The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft."

"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident."
Thermite video
Eplaya Bar Camp 2006 "What will it be"

The Eplaya Bar Camp Blog
User avatar
Rockdad
 
Posts: 3022
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 9:38 am
Location: Central Valley, Ca

Postby Dustbuddy » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:59 am

Rockdad wrote:Some more kooks:

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse".

- Van Romero, Vice President For Research At New Mexico Institute Of Mining And Technology



You don't say. The expert you're citing would seem to disagree:



Albuquerque Journal
September 21, 2001


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer


A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. ...

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.

That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images. ...



Read the rest: here


In fact here's been disagreeing for about four years, and it took nothing more than a simple search under "Van Romero" and "New Mexico" to turn this up. You might want to be more careful about checking your sources in the future.
User avatar
Dustbuddy
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:29 pm
Location: Northern Illinois

Next

Return to 2006 Art & Performance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 0 guests